1973 Words8 Pages
Student Name: Lu Jin Section: A01 Instructor: Jeff Bennet Paper No.2 Can a popular television show make a difference in how people think about gay men? As the issue of representation is central to this essay, the most obvious issue surrounding this is the stereotyping of gay characters on television. These types of programmes are no longer written by the homosexual for the homosexual, but have become integrated within “mainstream” mass media (Battles and Hilton-Morrow,2002). This paper will explore the extent of enabling and constraining effects that gay visibility and its accompanying representations have on the popular TV show “Will & Grace.” I will also examine how visibility has produced disciplinary discourses as well in the…show more content…
On the other hand, there is a tendency to view Jack through the lens of dominant cultural stereotypes. We can apparently tell that from the way he talks and poses in the scene. In the scene, Jack is so obsessed with the pizza boy and wants to marry him. We can see him as the most frequent humor and identify less with him than with other characters. In this scene, Jack was described as a ‘silly, irresponsible, immature, narcissistic, effeminate, and insulting, childlike unselfconsciousness, the epitome of the negative stereotypical gay male. For example, in the scene, Will and Jack is fighting about who knows Grace better, when Jack wins the situation, he gives a little wired dance to tease Will, and Will is driven beyond forbearance: “Your mother took the straps off your bed about 20 years too early!” Thus, Jack enabling the “gayness” visibility. All in all, Will and Jack both “came out” at the first season, throughout the contradict performance, Jack’s “gayness” has been re-inscribed, Will’s “gayness” has been resisted, but his “normativity” has been re-inscribed, because, his “gay” meaning making isn which certain cultural norms are seen as acceptable to society (Jeff, 2011). Their apparent contradictory personalities are, says James Keller, the “respective embodiments of the familiar and the unfamiliar, although, paradoxically, what is coded as familiar here is actually unfamiliar in the history of gay representation” (Keller,
Open Document